The reasoning of your argument states that a bunny hop shows more skill than an underrotated Quad, simply because it is a "completed" element. This makes no sense.

No, because a bunny hop is not an element in figure skating.

It's not about how much skill is required to do something.
It's about how well you can do a defined element.

Yeah, I'm sure doing a triple back-flip requires more skill than doing a quad,
but you ain't gonna get any points for it.

Originally Posted by Blades of Passion

Any element can be defined. An underrotated jump should be treated as its own element. The skater is, after all, achieving a specific amount of rotation when such a thing happens.

The message ISU is sending to the skaters is loud and clear: Don't under-rotate.

If you legitimize UR as you suggest and give in-between points,
skaters who are not quite capable of clean triple jumps or 3-3 combo will be practicing under-rotation and doing them on purpose in competition.

Do they/we/you really want to see that?

Besides, are you going to give same points to a jump with 2.6 rotations as a jump with 2.4 rotations? How about 2.2?

IAGH (it ain't gonna happen).

Figure skating jumps are well-defined moves.

Either you do a triple, or do a double. Not something in between.
It should never be "jump up, and rotate as much as you can!"

Originally Posted by prettykeys

Another point I would dispute is that in Weight-Lifting, it may be acceptable to score by full lifts because that's what that sport is about--lifting weights--and that's how they chose to define a "lift".

I'm just making an analogy. I'm not saying that weightlifing and figure skating should be completely equivalent.

Yeah, I'm sure doing a triple back-flip requires more skill than doing a quad, but you ain't gonna get any points for it.

You're missing the argument. Any underrotated jump is still an actual figure skating move. It is simply an easier version of said element.

If a skater attempts a Triple jump and double-foots the landing, and then falls out of the landing, and THEN puts both of their hands down on the ice...that complete mess of an attempt at the jump scores higher than if the skater had landed the jump cleanly but slightly underrotated it.

Originally Posted by skate4ever

If you legitimize UR as you suggest and give in-between points,
skaters who are not quite capable of clean triple jumps or 3-3 combo will be practicing under-rotation and doing them on purpose in competition.

I've talked about this before and it is simply not true. If a skater tries to do that, it will affect their landings and they won't gain any extra points.

Originally Posted by skate4ever

Do they/we/you really want to see that?

As prettykeys stated for me, underrotating a jump is less distracting than other mistakes that can be made on a jump. Some underrotated jumps even look pleasing to the eye still.

So, the real question is:

Do you want to see skaters get more points for doing mistakes that look awful (nearly falling on a jump) than doing a lesser mistake (underrotating the jump but landing cleanly)?

If you rotation falls 10 degrees short, well, too bad, but it only means that you didn't work on that jump hard enough. There are such things as definitions and standards of every element. You shouldn't go putting elements in your program if you cannot measure up to the standards.

I actually thought they should have continued with the so-called double penalty. However, with the new rules, it's quite possible for a skater to be rewarded with plus GOE if the UR was close enough, and I'm not happy with it. I only hope that things don't go any further.

If you rotation falls 10 degrees short, well, too bad, but it only means that you didn't work on that jump hard enough. There are such things as definitions and standards of every element. You shouldn't go putting elements in your program if you cannot measure up to the standards.

I actually thought they should have continued with the so-called double penalty. However, with the new rules, it's quite possible for a skater to be rewarded with plus GOE if the UR was close enough, and I'm not happy with it. I only hope that things don't go any further.

I respectfully disagree.. Because with the double penalty, its better for the skater not even actually attempt the jump than jump and underrotate cos usually thats how low the score can go for an UR'ed triple. What message is this sending to the sportsman? Do not attempt risky elements. I don't think a sportsman can be truely 100% sure of an elements that they are trying to push themselves further. Hence this rule is simply deterring them from trying more difficult elements. Why go for 3-3 when you might (not always but maybe) underrotate? Never take the risk and go for safe.. Is this how a sport will advance?
And why are so many ppls excited to see Plushenko? Because of his artistry or because he will bring up the technical difficulty, which has partially eroded from the sport due to non-risk taking behaviour thx to these penalties?

In 2004, there were 12 men who attempted at least one quad at Worlds to some degree of success (rotated, 2 footed, fallen, slightly cheated, etc) and everyone on the podium did at least one. In 2009, the top two finishers at the World Championships did not even attempt one much less successfully completed. I believe sport is about taking risks and pushing the envelope as do many other sports fans. This system does not reward that in any way and actually discourages it. I am not likely to enjoy a program with all kinds of mistakes like falls, two foots, hands down, and pops but a small amount of under rotation undetectable without slow motion video review over a couple times is not going to ruin a performance. Back to a question that illustrates my point:
At 2008 Worlds, did you enjoy Nakano's long or Kostner's long more? When you watched Nakano's program, did you think she was going to win because it was a great skate and performance? Were you shocked that Nakano got hit with that many under-rotations?

If a skater attempts a Triple jump and double-foots the landing, and then falls out of the landing, and THEN puts both of their hands down on the ice...that complete mess of an attempt at the jump scores higher than if the skater had landed the jump cleanly but slightly underrotated it.

As prettykeys stated for me, underrotating a jump is less distracting than other mistakes that can be made on a jump. Some underrotated jumps even look pleasing to the eye still.

I thought that was why the ISU instated the new rule that the judges won't know if the tech panel downgraded a jump or not. I though negative GOE on a downgraded jump was no longer compulsory.

So, the real question is:

Do you want to see skaters get more points for doing mistakes that look awful (nearly falling on a jump) than doing a lesser mistake (underrotating the jump but landing cleanly)?

Can't happen. An underrotated jump can never have a clean landing, imo. The underrotation makes that impossible. If you mean, underrotating the jump, but otherwise a clean landing, then they could have the benefit of +GOE from the judges but still have a downgrade. I would rather see someone completely rotate a jump and step out, touch ice, etc. than see someone a la Caroline who skates like a snail and URs, but still has decent landing positions.

At 2008 Worlds, did you enjoy Nakano's long or Kostner's long more? When you watched Nakano's program, did you think she was going to win because it was a great skate and performance? Were you shocked that Nakano got hit with that many under-rotations?

No.

The only downgrade Nakano deserved was on her opening Triple Axel and, again, the penalty was far too severe. What she did was much harder than a Double Axel and added more excitement to the program than a Double Axel would have. But, because of the ridiculous CoP rules, she received LESS points for the jump than if she had done a Double Axel. It makes no sense.

The other problem with downgrades being so severe is the matter of subjectivity. When a jump is right on the edge of being underrotated, tech controllers have to decide if it should be downgraded or not. Any number of tech specialists will have a different opinion on the matter. The whim of the tech controller who is judging the competition majorly changes placements (we are talking the difference between 4th place and 1st place here).

Nakano was hit with two downgrades (only one deserved), while Kostner was given none (and Kostner's 3Toe in her 2Axel-3Toe combination COULD have been downgraded, if the tech controller was being as strict with her as he was with Nakano).

--------

Originally Posted by skatingbc

I thought that was why the ISU instated the new rule that the judges won't know if the tech panel downgraded a jump or not. I though negative GOE on a downgraded jump was no longer compulsory.

It's not compulsory but it happens anyway. If a Triple is underrotated, it is often detectable. If the judges are simply grading that jumping pass as a Triple, and have no way of knowing if it has been downgraded or not, then they will give the element a -GOE even when it has already been handed a massive penalty via the downgrade.

Originally Posted by skatingbc

Can't happen. An underrotated jump can never have a clean landing, imo. The underrotation makes that impossible. If you mean, underrotating the jump, but otherwise a clean landing, then they could have the benefit of +GOE from the judges but still have a downgrade. I would rather see someone completely rotate a jump and step out, touch ice, etc. than see someone a la Caroline who skates like a snail and URs, but still has decent landing positions.

Caroline's jumps are not just underrotated (at times) - they are tiny and have ungainly takeoffs, which is cause for -GOE in and of itself (meaning they would still score less even if underrotated jumps were given a proper base value).

I'm not sure that you are seeing the whole picture. After all, you have not answered my question:

If someone does a big Triple jump that looks good but was a bit short on the landing, do you really think that should score less than someone who rotated a few degrees further but landed on two feet, fell out of the landing, and put both of their hands down on the ice?

Because that's how the system currently works.

-----------

And, to re-iterate my point again:

Originally Posted by quikrush

If you rotation falls 10 degrees short, well, too bad, but it only means that you didn't work on that jump hard enough.

If they rotated 10 degrees more, and then basically fall, does that mean they "worked hard enough" on the jump? If you think about it objectively, I am sure the logical conclusion will become apparent.

It's not compulsory but it happens anyway. If a Triple is underrotated, it is often detectable. If the judges are simply grading that jumping pass as a Triple, and have no way of knowing if it has been downgraded or not, then they will give the element a -GOE even when it has already been handed a massive penalty via the downgrade.

Well if the the UR is obvious enough for the judges to give the -GOE, then it deserves -GOE.

Caroline's jumps are not just underrotated (at times) - they are tiny and have ungainly takeoffs, which is cause for -GOE in and of itself (meaning they would still score less even if underrotated jumps were given a proper base value).

I'm not sure that you are seeing the whole picture. After all, you have not answered my question:

If someone does a big Triple jump that looks good but was a bit short on the landing, do you really think that should score less than someone who rotated a few degrees further but landed on two feet, fell out of the landing, and put both of their hands down on the ice?

Because that's how the system currently works.

-----------

And, to re-iterate my point again:

If they rotated 10 degrees more, and then basically fall, does that mean they "worked hard enough" on the jump? If you think about it objectively, I am sure the logical conclusion will become apparent.

I am seeing the whole picture, and just because I don't agree with you at all doesn't mean I'm not. I think the UR jumps were allowed under 6.0 to some extent, and because they are such an issue now, people are freaking out. I want to see COMPLETELY rotated jumps. Period. End of Story.

Yes, I think that someone who lands TRIPLE jump on two feet, hand down, fell out of the landing, all the problems should score more than someone who did not actually do a triple jump.

Well if the the UR is obvious enough for the judges to give the -GOE, then it deserves -GOE.

No...because the judges are scoring it as a triple jump, not as a double jump. They are giving it -GOE in comparison to what a perfect Triple Jump should look like, when it isn't a Triple jump. That would be like saying all Double Jumps automatically deserve a penalty because an entire rotation was left out of the jump, in comparison to a Triple.

Originally Posted by skatingbc

I want to see COMPLETELY rotated jumps. Period. End of Story.

Yes, I think that someone who lands TRIPLE jump on two feet, hand down, fell out of the landing, all the problems should score more than someone who did not actually do a triple jump.

Again, what you are saying makes no sense.

The difference between a "real" Triple and an underrotated Triple can be almost nothing. A few degrees of rotation.

How is it better for someone to rotate a few degrees further, but not be able to land the jump? How does this improve the program? How does that show greater skill?

Consider:

A.) Someone doing a Triple jump that lacks height, barely gets past the 1/4 turn mark, and has all kinds of problems on the landing.

and

B.) Someone doing a Triple jump with HUGE height, a solid landing, and being just a degree short of 1/4 turn mark (or being right ON the 1/4 turn mark and tech specialist deciding to downgrade it).

The former would score higher under the current CoP system. If you were watching back-to-back performances where this happened, I am sure you would classify B.) as being the more successful jumping pass. You may have not even noticed the very slight underrotation.

Yes, I think that someone who lands TRIPLE jump on two feet, hand down, fell out of the landing, all the problems should score more than someone who did not actually do a triple jump.

Oh, I don't see it that way at all. The same way that you want to see jumps that are fully rotated, I want to see jumps where the skater lands on his foot, not on his butt.

In fact, I would go farther that that. I want to see jumps that are landed on a proper flowing edge. Would you really say that the skater "did a triple Lutz" if he somehow made it around 1080 degrees before crashing to the ice? (The flight to Los Angeles was lovely, up until that crash landing that killed everyone aboard. )

Back in the 6.0 days a jump was not "ratified" (I am not entirely sure how that figured into the scoring) if the landing was so much as two-footed. A two-foot landing, you didn't do a triple Lutz.. Now --- land on your head, who cares?

Rotating in the air is not a skating skill. Gymnasts abd dancers can do it who never laced up a skate. Landing securely on the edge of your blade, that is a skating skill. IMHO a jump that is not landed should not get any credit at all.